5 ms·

Funny how Peter Singer condemns comfort while living comfortably enough to have the time to write and publish a dozen books [1]. That time could've really helpe

Funny how Peter Singer condemns comfort while living comfortably enough to have the time to write and publish a dozen books [1]. That time could've really helped a lot of people. Wonder what his thoughts on hypocrisy are. For me, other people's problems aren't my problem. If I won a billion dollars I'd probably donate to things generously out of mild interest in trying to make the world more to my liking, but that's about it. Not my fault if others are suffering, nor is it my fault if I get lucky some day. In my experience I've found that the more of a martyr someone tries to be, having a boat and trying to save others from drowning, the more they end up just being another body in the water, leaving the world worse off than if they had helped less. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Publications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Publications

robotresearcher 5y ago
> For me, other people's problems aren't my problem. If your luck runs out, we'll be here to help you.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  I highly doubt that you, specifically, or any other commenter in this thread will do anything to help me if I run into trouble. And if one were willing to do something, I would hope that they'd choose to channel their help towards someone their know deserves it like a loved one; not me, who as far as you know could just make up a fake sob story to con selfless strangers on the internet.
  - robotresearcher 5y ago
    Too late, we probably already paid for your K-12 education.
    - silicon2401 5y ago
      I'm not sure what your point is. I'm happy to benefit from others. If others are happy when I benefit from them then that's great for them, but I don't care much one way or another unless it's a loved one.
tasty_freeze 5y ago
He donates about 30% of his income. He freely admits he still lives comfortably. Would you have a higher opinion of him if he didn't donate any money instead of "only" 30%? Peter Singer doesn't claim to be a martyr. I'm not sure where you get that. He is a philosopher/ethicist -- it is his job to think about moral issues and present his conclusions, right or wrong.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  I would have a very high opinion of him if he lived by his own standards. It's not special or rare; there are plenty of Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, (etc) ascetics who renounce everything from income all the way to even clothing altogether. Or if he acknowledged his own hypocrisy, like another philosopher (Diogenes? don't remember) who said something like "if you ask me directions, I'm not obligated to go down that way myself." I made my comment because I find it worthless to reference someone who doesn't practice what they preach. You might as well quote Bezos or Zuck for some PR statement about how it's important to love your fellow man and donate. It's just cherry-picking a quote from somebody with status that already fits with your predetermined conclusions.
  - tasty_freeze 5y ago
    In his book, "The Life You Can Save" (free to download as an audiobook or ebook from thelifeyoucansave.org) he does talk at length about the question of "how much is enough? how much is too much? what obligation do you have to your family and community vs helping distant strangers?" In Chapter 10 of that book, "A Realistic Standard" he brings it all home. He has no problem recognizing that the philosophically perfect solution is unattainable for but a rare few, and that pragmatic solutions that fall short of it would still leave the worst off far better off than they are now. > Hence in this chapter I propose a much easier target: roughly 5% of annual income for those who are financially comfortable, with less for those below that level, and significantly more for the very rich. My hope is that people will be convinced that they can and should give at these levels. I believe that doing so would be a first step toward restoring the ethical importance of giving as an essential component of a well-lived life. And if it is widely adopted, we’ll have more than enough money to end extreme poverty. The corresponding website also has a calculator that has a progressive suggestion about what is a good target for someone of a certain income. https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/take-the-pledge/ https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/take-the-pledge/ He gives 30%. I don't think he is extremely rich, yet he gives at a rate 6 times what he suggests people who are comfortably well off should give. Do you still feel he is a hypocrite?
jnwatson 5y ago
How Peter Singer lives is completely irrelevant to the argument. The argument stands on its own regardless of the provider. Google "Ad Hominem".
- silicon2401 5y ago
  Peter Singer himself is completely irrelevant. At the end of the day it's just an opinion.
s5300 5y ago
>For me, other people's problems aren't my problem. Just hope that in whatever society you live in, the people who do have problems don't get to a point in which they're so desperate they turn to violence against you, if you so have a lifestyle in which they feel you should be helping maintain said society.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  > if you so have a lifestyle in which they feel you should be helping maintain said society. I don't understand this but protecting myself from other humans is part of my goals, just like making sure I'm never in serious danger from wild animals either.

robotresearcher 5y ago

> For me, other people's problems aren't my problem. If your luck runs out, we'll be here to help you.

silicon2401 5y ago
I highly doubt that you, specifically, or any other commenter in this thread will do anything to help me if I run into trouble. And if one were willing to do something, I would hope that they'd choose to channel their help towards someone their know deserves it like a loved one; not me, who as far as you know could just make up a fake sob story to con selfless strangers on the internet.
- robotresearcher 5y ago
  Too late, we probably already paid for your K-12 education.
  - silicon2401 5y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is. I'm happy to benefit from others. If others are happy when I benefit from them then that's great for them, but I don't care much one way or another unless it's a loved one.

tasty_freeze 5y ago

He donates about 30% of his income. He freely admits he still lives comfortably. Would you have a higher opinion of him if he didn't donate any money instead of "only" 30%? Peter Singer doesn't claim to be a martyr. I'm not sure where you get that. He is a philosopher/ethicist -- it is his job to think about moral issues and present his conclusions, right or wrong.

silicon2401 5y ago
I would have a very high opinion of him if he lived by his own standards. It's not special or rare; there are plenty of Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, (etc) ascetics who renounce everything from income all the way to even clothing altogether. Or if he acknowledged his own hypocrisy, like another philosopher (Diogenes? don't remember) who said something like "if you ask me directions, I'm not obligated to go down that way myself." I made my comment because I find it worthless to reference someone who doesn't practice what they preach. You might as well quote Bezos or Zuck for some PR statement about how it's important to love your fellow man and donate. It's just cherry-picking a quote from somebody with status that already fits with your predetermined conclusions.
- tasty_freeze 5y ago
  In his book, "The Life You Can Save" (free to download as an audiobook or ebook from thelifeyoucansave.org) he does talk at length about the question of "how much is enough? how much is too much? what obligation do you have to your family and community vs helping distant strangers?" In Chapter 10 of that book, "A Realistic Standard" he brings it all home. He has no problem recognizing that the philosophically perfect solution is unattainable for but a rare few, and that pragmatic solutions that fall short of it would still leave the worst off far better off than they are now. > Hence in this chapter I propose a much easier target: roughly 5% of annual income for those who are financially comfortable, with less for those below that level, and significantly more for the very rich. My hope is that people will be convinced that they can and should give at these levels. I believe that doing so would be a first step toward restoring the ethical importance of giving as an essential component of a well-lived life. And if it is widely adopted, we’ll have more than enough money to end extreme poverty. The corresponding website also has a calculator that has a progressive suggestion about what is a good target for someone of a certain income. https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/take-the-pledge/ https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/take-the-pledge/ He gives 30%. I don't think he is extremely rich, yet he gives at a rate 6 times what he suggests people who are comfortably well off should give. Do you still feel he is a hypocrite?

jnwatson 5y ago

How Peter Singer lives is completely irrelevant to the argument. The argument stands on its own regardless of the provider. Google "Ad Hominem".

silicon2401 5y ago
Peter Singer himself is completely irrelevant. At the end of the day it's just an opinion.

s5300 5y ago

>For me, other people's problems aren't my problem. Just hope that in whatever society you live in, the people who do have problems don't get to a point in which they're so desperate they turn to violence against you, if you so have a lifestyle in which they feel you should be helping maintain said society.

silicon2401 5y ago
> if you so have a lifestyle in which they feel you should be helping maintain said society. I don't understand this but protecting myself from other humans is part of my goals, just like making sure I'm never in serious danger from wild animals either.